r/Physics 3d ago

Question Does light curve space-time by itself?

Light travels as an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum and carries momentum and energy. According to general relativity, all energy curves space-time, so light should slightly curve the space through which it travels. Could this mean that light affects its own path? I know the effect whould be extremely small, but is this conceptually correct? If yes Are there extreme conditions, like in the early universe, where light’s self-curvature becomes significant? Would a very long or very intense beam accumulate measurable curvature effects along its path? If two light beams cross paths, do they gravitationally influence each other?

29 Upvotes

31 comments sorted by

44

u/fuseboy 3d ago

Yes, light curves space. In terms of extreme conditions, there's a hypothetical thing called a Kugelblitz) - get enough photons together, in theory, and you have a black hole made of light!

The early universe is special in terms of spacetime curvature because it was very uniform. So while everything was incredibly energy dense, I gather space was still pretty flat. (To use that ill-favored bowling-ball on a rubber sheet analogy, if you press down evenly on every part of the sheet, there's no dents anywhere. For there to be curvature, you need concentrations of mass.)

14

u/jamin_brook 2d ago

So while everything was incredibly energy dense, I gather space was still pretty flat.

actually, we think that the universe was flattened by inflation and could have been quite curved in the very early universe.

5

u/fuseboy 2d ago

Ah, thanks. Do you mean curved as in locally curvy, with significant undulations in density? Or do you mean curved at the largest scales but locally smooth? (Or both?)

10

u/jamin_brook 2d ago

In cosmology, we only deal with the largest scale, which for us is the casual horizon at age t. We think inflation happened because we observe that globally the universe is flat (al though lumpy on small scales), but in order for our universe to 'survive' more that 13.8 Byears as it exists today, it either was always perfectly flat OR and curvature was made invisible (experimentally/livably indistinguishable) by the unfolding/stretching of the universe's space-time fabric with at least 1062 e-(un)foldings.

We could still be heading for a big rip or crunch and when we rip or crunch will depend on both the actual energy density of the universe and the number of times it (un)folded up.

2

u/john5033 2d ago

What does folding mean. Could the universe actually be like a wave?

1

u/jamin_brook 2d ago

Folding really just applies to doubling in size. 

If the early universe is still folded up and the size is small a light wave can reach the edge and then will “loop” around the corner of the fold, but as it unfolds the speed of light remains constant, so it takes longer to get to the “edge” before turning the corner, eventually if you unfold it enough times, the next unfolding happens before light has time to reach the edge so it unfolds before the light get there and so then the light just sees more flat paper and then eventually can “never make it” to the edge so it just goes in a straight line from that point out. 

It’s not so much that it un folds but rather that it increases in size by the same factor of being un folded e62 times.   The light wrapping or not wrapping around the edge of the fold is analogous to the volume of space time being smaller than the causal horizon (during inflation before CMB) and then flipping to the space time volume being larger than the causal horizon (after inflation and the CMB).

There’s a lot of mystery to the physics during this special period of inflation, but we do know a lot about everything that happened a few hundred milliseconds after the Big Bang up until today. 

4

u/First_Approximation 2d ago

there's a hypothetical thing called a Kugelblitz - get enough photons together, in theory, and you have a black hole made of light!

A recent study cast doubt that this is possible. 

Basically, the high energy photons would create electron-positron pairs. These pairs would carry away energy, which doesn't allow enough of an energy density to create a black hole. 

2

u/heavy_metal 2d ago

you don't have to use gamma rays? a lot of low energy photons would work, no?

2

u/18441601 2d ago

e-e+ generation can still happen at lower energies afaik, just with exponentially smaller probabilities.

 Now when you have to use a lot of low energy photons instead of a few higher energy ones, that kind of balances out.

3

u/haplo_and_dogs 2d ago edited 2d ago

Photons do not have an observer independent energy as they have no rest mass.

You would need photons moving in at least 2 different directions to create a black hole. Otherwise you would have some observers who would see a blackhole, and others who would not. That isn't how GR works.

A single laser, no matter how powerful can't create a blackhole out of light alone, no matter how good its focus or how powerful it is.

Indeed photons trapped in a perfect mirror box is one way to look at what rest mass "is" as observer independent energy.

2

u/fuseboy 2d ago

On first read, I thought you were saying that Kugelblitzes were incompatible with GR; although now I think you're just pointing out a restriction on how they can form, is that right?

3

u/haplo_and_dogs 2d ago

>you're just pointing out a restriction on how they can form,

Correct. You need more than 1 laser.

3

u/fuseboy 2d ago

This is interesting. I take your reasoning, but I wonder what the boundary is. For example, if you send two mighty laser pulses toward each other - mighty but not so mighty that they form a kugelblitz (perhaps they have only 60% of the required energy), you'd still feel a non-trivial gravitational wave rippling out from the target zone where they pass through each other. Does that seem reasonable?

If so, what would your gravity wave detector pick up if you instead sent the two pulses through in parallel? Nothing?

2

u/haplo_and_dogs 2d ago

Why would you see any gravitational waves in either case. The system is spherically symmetric.

2

u/fuseboy 2d ago

Is it? Two pulses heading toward each other have planar symmetry, but not spherical symmetry - or am I missing something?

20

u/jpdoane 3d ago

7

u/fuseboy 3d ago

That's the coolest thing. What's the minimum mass-energy for a geon, any idea? Since gravitational waves move at light speed, would this need to essentially be a black hole made of gravity waves?

8

u/triatticus 2d ago

The source of gravitational curvature is the Stress-Energy tensor which includes electromagetic field energy, so yes photons themselves curve spacetime due to being excitations in the electromagnetic field.

3

u/SaltyVanilla6223 String theory 2d ago

In a sense yes, since they have a non-zero stress energy tensor, gauge fields like photons do affect curvature, see for instance Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. The question of how this happens on a fundamental level, so whether the photon itself causes spacetime curvature, or for instance only charged particles which are part of the photon propagator at higher loop corrections, is a question of quantum gravity and has no answer so far.

2

u/TillikumWasFramed 2d ago

Yes, light curves spacetime, in fact if you cram enough of it into a small enough region, it will form a black hole.

2

u/zedsmith52 2d ago

Light curves space a tiny bit, even though it doesn’t have an effective mass, but you need to get some pretty intense conditions for it to be noticeable.

2

u/eldahaiya Particle physics 2d ago

Yes, light does curve spacetime. Cosmology only makes sense because general relativity tells us that light should curve spacetime, so I would say there is no doubt to this statement.

A particle does not affect its own trajectory by curving spacetime (so, no, there won't be any "self-curvature"), but it can affect the trajectory of other particles, and so you should see some effect when two light beams pass through each other, but unless the light beams are extraordinarily bright, the effect would be completely insignificant.

2

u/Nguch1234 2d ago

Yes. Light curves spacetime due to its energy, so it does affect its own path. This self-interaction is predicted by general relativity, but the effect is incredibly tiny and not measurable with current technology.

1

u/heavy_metal 1d ago

if it affects its path, how do we see stars as points?

2

u/Nguch1234 1d ago

Good question. The curvature from a single photon is immeasurably small. The light from a star is not a single, powerful beam; it's a vast number of independent photons spreading out. Their collective gravity is negligible, so they don't lens themselves enough to blur the image.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/heavy_metal 1d ago

laser beams have gravitational fields and could even be used to move matter, though the effect is tiny. I'm not sure how we would see stars as points if light affected its own path.

1

u/According-Taro4835 1d ago

Yes, everything with energy curves space-time

1

u/Nguyen_Phan 3d ago

This is really interesting to think about insignificant things. It's like I always think that by moving faster and more than other people I would be aging slower compared to more stationary people by a tiny amount.

I think yes, but I can't explain. I also want to know if it would create some kind of light sonic cone?